4. "The prayer of consecration," which the elder is required to say, is another “dead fly," emitting by no means a sweet savor. Our "Lord Jesus took bread and blessed it," or "gave thanks," as it is recorded by Paul, and as many of the Greek copies of Matthew's Gospel have it. Why will men venture to change the language of Him who instituted this ordinance? And our objections are still stronger when we find the undue importance which is attached to this "prayer of consecration." We are particularly informed that "if the consecrated bread and wine be all spent, the elder may consecrate more by repeating the prayer of consecration !” And again, that “if the elder be straitened for time, he may omit any part of the service, EXCEPT THE PRAYER OF CONSECRATION." But where is all this found in the New Testament? Where has the Saviour intimated that if the elder have not laid his hands upon a sufficient quantity of bread and wine, when he first "gives thanks" (or offers "the prayer of consecration"), he must "lay his hands" upon more, and "give thanks" over again !* "Who hath required this at your hands?" Does it not savor strongly of the mass, to give such prominence to a form prescribed by man? "ExCEPT the prayer of consecration!" The Holy Mother Church has it, "EXCEPT all be said and done by a regularly ordained priest in communion with the See of Rome," empowered to consecrate the bread or wafer into "the body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ!

Finally: The unscriptural character of this part of the Methodist Discipline is also manifest in the act of distribution. Paul tells us that he "received of the Lord," that the Lord Jesus said, "Take, eat-this is my body," &c. "This cup is the New Testament in my blood," &c. (1 Cor. 11:24, 25.) And with a few unimportant variations, the same is

It is remarkable that although our Saviour is said to have "given thanks," just before he distributed the elements, "the prayer of consecration" contains not one syllable properly of the nature of thanksgiving!

the record by Matthew and Luke. But here in the "Discipline," the form used by the Saviour of men, and specially revealed to the Apostle Paul, is crowded into the "prayer of consecration," and instead thereof, the elder is to say the following: "The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy soul and body unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him by faith with thanksgiving." And a similar form is used when he distributes the wine, only with the necessary adaptation to the change of the elements. But it is obvious that this, to say the least, is a needless and unauthorized departure from Christ's own teaching and example. If the Saviour himself selected and used a certain form of words, who will venture to say it is not most agreeable to his will? Can it be right to substitute a different one? And especially is this inquiry important, when the substituted form employs a phrascology with regard to the "body and blood" of the Saviour, which has no parallel in the Scriptures, but is strongly tinctured with idolatry. "The body of our Lord, &c. preserve thy soul and body unto everlasting life." The Romanist could consistently use such a prayer, because he believes that the bread or wafer is "the body, soul and divinity" of the Saviour. But the sober Christian will say—“Let me employ as nearly as possible the gracious words which proceeded from the lips of Him who spake as never man spake, and who has a right to say what shall be the form of administering the most solemn ordinance of his own house.”

It may perhaps be thought that a close adherence to the inspired pattern in administering the sacraments, is not a matter of very much importance. But if Christ and his Apostles have left on record a certain form, why not use it? Can we improve upon it? Would not every Christian revolt, if any uninspired man should take the liberty of changing the baptismal form? Yet why should the one phraseology be esteemed more sacred than the other? Why would it not be

lawful to say "I baptize thee in the name of the Trinity?" Yet this change would not be so great as has been usual in the form of the other sacrament. The form of baptism is but once recorded (Matt. 28:19), yet we believe there is almost entire uniformity with respect to it, in the Christian world. Whence the unwarranted liberty taken with the other form!

The writer is also aware that in this Letter, and perhaps in some others, he crosses the path of one or two denominations of Christians with whom he wishes to have no controversy, and toward whom he entertains feelings of fraternal regard. If he has occasionally touched the views and usages of other sects, while he asks for a candid perusal of what he may write, he can only express his regret at the necessity which has been laid upon him, of encroaching to some small extent upon neutral territory.

LETTER XVI.

METHODIST EPISCOPACY-EXCLUSION OF LAYMEN.

REV. SIR-In the progress of this investigation we come now to the subject of Church Government, as administered in Arminian Methodism.

XI. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO HER FORM OF GOVERNMENT -IT IS UNSCRIPTURAL, ANTI-REPUBLICAN, UNJUST AND TYRANNICAL.

On page 126 of "the Discipline," it is said that "the Holy Spirit has appointed divers orders of ministers in his church." And elsewhere in the same volume, "forms of consecration and ordination" are given for bishops, elders, and deacons, respectively. In the appendix to Buck's Theological Dictionary, written by Dr. Bangs, it is said that in Methodism "three orders of ministers are recognized, and the duties peculiar to each are clearly defined." Dr. Clarke,

in commenting on 1 Tim. chap. 3, v. 1, states that "Episcopacy in the church of God is of Divine appointment, and should be maintained and respected. Under God there should be supreme governors in the church as well as in the state. The state has its monarch: the church has its bishop.” "The office of a bishop is from God." Note, Acts 20:28. Now that these "divers orders" are the invention of men, and not the appointment of God, has been often and most abundantly proved. For,

1. There is no scriptural evidence whatever that the office of deacon embraced the duty either of teaching or ruling in the church. In support of this position, we refer to the original appointment as recorded in the 6th chapter of Acts, where the object is distinctly declared to be, not the establishment of another order of ministers or teachers, but of a class of men whose business it should be to "serve tables,” or attend to the secular affairs of the church; "but we," say the Apostles, "will give ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." That some of those who were first appointed deacons, did afterward preach the gospel, and act as evangelists, is not denied; but there is no evidence whatever that they were either ministers or evangelists, in consequence of their appointment to "serve tables." "It is not reason," say the Apostles, "that we should LEAVE the word of God and serve tables."

Dr. Bangs, in his "Vindication of Methodist Episcopacy," p. 14, derives an argument from 1 Tim. 3:8, in support of the ministerial character of deacons: "Likewise must the deacons be grave"-but just three verses farther on the Apostle adds, even so must their wives be grave." Were the deacons' wives ministers of the gospel? And when Paul subjoins two verses farther down, "For they that use the office of deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith," Dr. Clarke well expresses the meaning "they are here said to purchase to themselves a

good degree; for instead of having to minister to the bodies and bodily wants of the poor, the faithful deacons were raised to minister in holy things: and instead of ministering the bread that perisheth, they were raised to minister the bread of life to immortal souls.” This no doubt was often exemplified when persons exercising the office of deacon diligently and faithfully, were elevated to the higher office of ministers of the everlasting gospel. "It is evident," says Dr. Scott, an Episcopalian, "that they were appointed to take care of the property of the church, and not to the pastoral office." "It seems undeniable that they were appointed solely to take care of the temporal concerns of the church; and not, as deacons, to preach, or to administer sacred ordinances." "It appears

to me very likely," continues Dr. Scott, "that both at this and future periods, many who were appointed deacons in the first instance, afterward became evangelists or pastors; and when they were fully employed, other deacons were appointed." Com. on Acts 6:2-6. Since then not a particle of evidence can be gathered from the New Testament, that the first deacons were ministers of the gospel at all, we need not trouble ourselves to disprove the other feature of the system, which places them in an "order" inferior to elders and bishops. It is a subject of much curiosity with some persons, to have a distinct reference made to the identical passage or passages of Scripture, upon which the preachers of Methodism rely to establish this difference of "order" among the ministers of Christ. Show us the chapter and verse, and then we will believe that regularly ordained ministers of the

The "Discipline" (p. 146) authorizes the deacon "to baptize;" but it appears that one ordination by "the laying on of the hands of a bishop," is not sufficient to qualify for administering the other sacrament. But where has the Master said that some of his servants are authorized to officiate in the one ordinance, and not qualified for the other? A distinction of this kind, in the lawful administration of the sacraments, is very well in Popery, with her "blasphemous fable" of "the body, soul and divinity;" but is unworthy of any church emancipated from her thraldom.